





/. ^-..^'^ 












'o , . " ^A. 









■<^ 



~;>»i 












4 o 









■V. % ^^<^^ .'^%l 













^^--^ 






^•a-' c « " « 






"-^^ 















4 cu * ; 



V 



<^., 






.V? 



vf' 















^■P 









^^'X 



<. 












^ 



V''"'t>. 












?r' :^ 






A^-^^, 



■"-. 






-^^-^^^^ 



«>■ 



n^ 






SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES. 



SPEECH 



ME. JEMIIS, OF IE¥ YOEK. 



ON 



THE MEXICAN TREATY. 



Delivered in the House of Representatives, February 17, 1849. 



The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. Cabell, of Flo- 
rida, in the chair,) on the bill to carry into effect the Treaty of Peace with Mexico, Mr. JENKINS 
said: 

Mr. Chairjiax : I have listened with interest to the speech just made by the 
gentleman from Kentucky, (Mr. Thompson.) The arguments which he has put 
forth, showing the constitutional right in Congress to abolish the slave trade, aa 
well as slavery itself, in the District of Columbia, and to exclude slavery from the 
new territories, were no less instructive than patriotic in their character. With- 
out compromitting the interests of the Southern States, he has assured us that the 
discussion of this subject, and the exclusion of slavery from the new territories by 
Congress, so far from being a cause for dissolving the Union, or even for any ma- 
terial excitement, will quietly be acquiesced in, as other acts of our National Le 
gislature are, and open to the future, prospects realized nowhere but in the past 
history of this country. Sir, I agree with these sentiments. They are the 
more a treasure because they come from a Kentuckian. 

I cannot agree with the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. Stephens,) who address* 
ed the committee this morning. If there be any difference between the protocol, 
signed by our Ministers to Mexico, and the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, this 
affords no good cause for abandoning and giving up the acquired territory. Fur- 
ther negotation ii the appropriate means of arranging such difference, if any such 
exist. No, sir, I am in favor of paying Mexico according to the terms of the treaty, 
and of providing a government for these territories without delay. The difficulties 
whicii the slave question presents, have induced some to desire a postponement Ot 
this subject for adjustment by another administration. I am opposed to this policy. 
Neither a belief in any superior abilities of the incoming administration on the 
one hand, or a desire to embarrass its operations on the other, can be a sufficient 
reason for delay upon this subject. At this time there is no civil government over 
this wide domain, except what arises from the laws of necessity. None can right- 
fully be instituted without the authority of Congress. The vast tide of emigration 
there, composed of the adventurous — those, mainly, who have had but little expe- 
rience in the administration of the laws — must of^ necessity lead to conflicts inju. 
rious to the present peace of the people, and detrimental to the permanent pros- 
perity of the country. If there be difficulties in the way of forming Governments 
for these territories, let us make an effort to surmount them. If there be dangers, 
l et us m eet them, and not rest supinely until we are overwhelmed. 
Towers, vrinter, comer of Louisiana avenue and 6th street. 



We have heard it said, that if the " Wilmot proviso" should be embodied in a 
territorial bill, the bill thus framed would never pass the Senate ; or if it should' 
struggle through that body, it would be met by the Executive veto. If these fore- 
bodings were well founded, should we therefore neglect our duty? Has it come tO' 
this, that an opinion shadowed forth from this quarter or that, high or low, should 
be construed into a mandate ; and that this House must hence take heed and frame 
its enactments according to the prescribed rule ? Such a practice may be weir 
suited to purposes of arbitrary power, but can have lio lodgement in a Govern- 
ment like ours. I complain not that the President, when he signed the Oregon 
bill, gave out that he would not have signed it, containing as it did the " Wilmot 
proviso," if the country had been located south of north latitude thirty-six degrees 
and thirty minutes. He had a right to speak for himself. We have the same 
right, and in case of disagreement the country must decide. No, sir; if such were 
the opinions of the President, I complain not that he has given utterance to them 
in advance. He has thereby atlbrded us a fair oppoitunity to examine the sound- 
ness of his positions, and we have some right to expect that closer scrutiny and 
more ample reflection, on his part, will yet place his o[)iuions upon this subject in 
the line of coijicidenco wiih his vast constituency — a constituency whose interests 
he is supposed to represent, and whose will he must obey. In approving the act 
organizing the Territorial Government of Oregon, the President gave the sanction 
of his name and place to the constitutional right of Congress to exclude slavery 
from the Territories. All that remains in his mind, therefore, dwindles into a 
mere question of expediency — a question which time and reason will take care of. 

But I put this question upon higher ground than the opinions of any President* 
Notwithstanding the force of great names, the force of principle is greater. The 
confidence which the opinions of men inspire, is feeble indeed when compared to- 
clear conviction, founded upon adequate examination. A strong sense of justice 
pervading the public mind — calm, decisive, and fearless — outweighs the glitter of 
names, and successfully grapples with error in its own entrenchments. 

It is claimed by some that Congress has no right to legislate in any manner for 
the government of the territories. Others insist, that although Congress has the 
right to provide for the government of the territories, yet that we have no power 
to exclude slavery from them. If Congress has the right to legislate upon the 
subject of slavery in the territories, it is as much a breacti of our fundamental law 
for us 10 withliold the exercise of that power in a proper case, as it would be for 
Congress to grasp authority forbidden by the Constitution. Whoever, through 
weakness, or from motives of ambition, withdraws that instrument from its appro- 
priate field of action and cripples its native energies, inflicts a deep vC'ound upoiv 
the Constitution, and has approached the verge of anarchy. The question then is, 
■whether the doctrine of the absence of power in Congress to legislate upon this 
subject is sound ? Will it stand the test of reason ? Has it stood the test of ex- 
perience ? 

No extended argument is necessary to show that Congress has ample power and 
the exclusive right to legislate for ihe Territories, and that this power does not 
stop short of, but embraces the oubject of slavery. If the Constitution of the 
United States were entirely silent on the subject, the right to govern Territories 
acquired by purchase or conquest is manifestly incident to such acquisition. The 
right to acquire carries with it the power to take care of the thing acq?iired. 

The United States, as a nation, can only act through Congress. By express 
provision in the Constitution, Congress has the exclusive power of making war. 
If a territory be conquered, what is to be done with the fruits of the conquest? 
Surely the right of sovereignty over the territory passes to the Unit<?d Staies as a 
nation, and through the instrumentality of Congress the nation must govern it. If 
the territory derived from Mexico be regarded as a conquered country, we obtain- 



3 

"^ ed the same right of sovereignty over it that Mexico had before the conquest. If 



exercise of any portion of that sovereignty is forbidden to Congress by the • 
stiiution, then to such extent, and no more, is the power of Congress circum- 



-i the ej 
Const 
'^ scribed. But the Constitution has nowhere forbidden Congress control over the 

' subject of slavery in the Territories. If, therefore, Mexico, when she govemed-r 
^ the country, could control slavery therein, we can now. If she could exclude it from 
; th" country, so can we. 

The rule is the same with regard to Territories acquired by purchase. In the 
year 1803 we purchased Louisiana of the Republic of France. The First Consul, 
in the name of the French people, ceded to the United States, " forever, and ia 
full sovereignty, the said Territory, with all its rights and appurtenances." In 
1819 we purchased the Floridas of Spain. This territory, also, according to the 
words of the treaty, was ceded to the Uniled States "in ///// property and sove. 
reiirnty." What is the sovereignty thus conveyed to the United Slates? It is 
the supreme power to rule and govern the Territories. The grants did not stop 
short and prohibit our interference with slavery, but they conveyed to us the mos^^ 
ample and unrestricted power. 

By the late treaty with Mexico, we have acquired New Mexico and Califurnia ; i- 
in part as a conquest, and in part as a purchase. Upon the execution of this trea. 
ty the full right of sovereignty over these Territories was vested in the United 
States. MaiVifestiy, we have all the rights over the acquired country that Mexico, 
ever could have had. Whether, therefore, our title was obtained by purchase or j 
conquest, ihe effect is the same. In either case, the sovereignty passed fron*,,. 
Mexico to the United States. The right to forbid slavery therein passed to us aSff 
fully as Mexico herself had enjoyed that power. If we have not the same power j 
that Mexico had over the acquired territory, when, where, and how did we looss , 
it? Amusing, indeed, would be the task of accounting for such a remarkable losst, 
A distinction may be taken between territory within the original limits of the/ 
United States and our acquisitions since the formation of the Constitution. Thi^. ^ 
distinction makes in favor of our power to legislate f^jr the Territories. But sup,' 
pose New Mexico and California to stand in the same relation that they would be 
if they had belonged to the United States as a part of our territory prior to the 
adoption of that instrument, and what is the result? It will not be difficult to find, 
authority in the Constitution for the full and complete government ol the TerritOo 
ries by the National Legislature. 

Prior to the adoption of the Constitution, the vacant lands now composing the. 
States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Tennessee,;, 
Alabama, and Mississippi, and which had been claimed by the United States on 
the one hand, and by various individual States on the other, had been chiefly ceded 
to the United States. As early as 1780, Congress, by a resolution, declared that 
these lands should subsequently be erected into States. By the ordinance of 1787, .. 
the government of the Territory northwest of the Ohio river was provided for,... 
and a similar Territorial Government had been under discussion for the Territory/ 
south of that river as early as 1781. These facts were all before the framers qfj^' 
the Constitution when that instrument was made. Would it not be strange indeedf^ 
if the venerable and sagacious founders of our present form rf Government did not.* 
provide, in the Constitution, for the government of these vast Territories, preparav 
tory to their admission into the Union as States? Can those who contend for the 
absence of this power assign any reason why a subject of such moment should 
have escaped the attention of that assemblage ? The framers of that instrument 
well knf.w that' the power to govern the Territories, under the Articles of Confede- 
ration, was doubted, and hence they must have distinctly seen the importance oi 
embracing it in the Constitution. With these facts in view, the Convention in. 
serted in the Constitution a clause conferring on Congress the "power to dispose 



of, and make all needful rides and regulations respecting the territory and other 
property of the United States." The power to " make all needful rides and regu- 
lations" is a most comprehensive authority. Law itself is a rule. The Consti- 
tution and the whole body of laws, which this or any country has ever made, are 
nothing more than a system of rides and regulations. How, then, can it be said 
that the Constitution has not vested in Congress the most ample power to provide 
for the government of the Territories ? The right of Congress to legislate for the 
Territories is far more ample than that of any State Government over its own do- 
minions ; for the States have surrendered a portion of their sovereignty to the 
Union ; but Congress, over the Territories, has all the power of the State and 
General Governments combined. 

If such be our power over the Territories, from what clause in the Constitution, 
or upon what principle of law, do gentlemen find that we are required to stop short 
of touching the question of slavery? By what rule of construction is it ascer- 
tainod, that we may travel on in the labor of government until we reach the con- 
fines of this subject, and that then the whole machinery must halt ? Surely if there 
be any reason for such a sudden rupture in the round of legislation, the sharp sense 
of gentlemen upon this subject, would have discovered it before this very power 
had been exercised more than half a century. 

Notwithstanding this ample authority to legislate for the Territories, granted to 
Congress in the Constitution itself^ scarcely a week passes without a stout denial 
of this power by those who are in favor of extending slavery beyond its present 
limits into territory now free. We are reminded of the importance of a strict con- 
fitruction of the Constitution — of the caution with which we should approach the 
outer margin of power therein granted. But gentlemen should be cautious about 
going too far. The rule which is proposed as our guide to let slavery into the 
Territories may let in freedom also. What authority in the Constitution is there 
f or reclaiming a slave who escapes from a State into a Territory 1 Would it not 
be well to see whether the legislation of Congress has not gone beyond its con- 
stitutional sphere in upholding the institution of slavery? The only clause in the 
Constitution for reclaiming fugitive slaves provides that "no person held to service 
or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another (another State) 
shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such 
service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such 
service or labor may be due." If a slave escape from a State to a Territory, or 
from a Territory to a State, there is not a word in the Constitution authorizing the 
recapture of such slave ; for the Constitution authorizes such recapture only when 
the slave escapes from one State to another State; not from a State io a Territo- 
ry, from a Territory to a State, or from one Territory to another. What, then, 
shall be said of the statute of 1793, which goos beyond this clause in the Consti- 
tution, and authorizes the recapture of slaves escaping into or from any Territory? 
Where is the constitutional provision authorizing the passage of any such statute ? 
But suppose the Constitution had conferred upon Congress the right to make all 
needful rules and regulations for the recapture of persons held to service escaping 
to or from the Territories, the words " rules and regulations" would then be allow. 
ed to mean something. They would be found full of significance. But let us put 
the question again. Where do you find the constitutional power to reclaim slaves 
who have escaped to or from the Territories ? I answer, no where but in the 
clause empowering Congress " to make all needful rules and regulations respect- 
ing the territory or other property of the United States." To this same .clause, 
alleged to confer no power upon Congress over the subject of slavery in the Ter- 
ritories, must you resort to reclaim your fugitive slaves, who escape into or from 
those Territories. 

Another pai t of the Constitution throws further light on this question. By that in- 



strument, States are forbidden from entering into any treaty, alliance, or confedera- 
tion; States are prohibited from coining money, emitling bills of credit, making 
anything but gold and silver a tender, from making any ex post facto law, or 
granting any title of nobility. But no such power is forbidden to the Territo- 
ries. VVhy? For the best of reasons : the government of these 'J'erritories, by 
the different States represented in Congress, is a sudicient guarantee against 
setting up in Territories what is ii)rbidden to States themselves. But if it be 
true that Congress has no right to govern the Territories, and that the people of 
the Territories have a right to set up their own governments, then a territorial 
Gocernment, thus self constituted, has the right to go far beyond the powers con- 
ferred on the States, and coin money, emit bills of credit, make anything a ten- 
der, enact ex post facto laws, and grant titles of nobility ! Ts it believed that it 
was the intention of the framers of the ConstituMon to leave to the Territories the 
exercise of more ample powers than was allowed to the States ? 

The Constitution guarantees to the States a republican form of government, but 
contains nothing of this sort with regard' to the Territories. Those who maintain 
that Congress has no right to legislate for the Territories would lind no difficulty in 
setting up a monarchy in their limits without violating the Constitution. 

If the people of the Territories have a right to originate their own governments, 
and are in no respect dependent upon the action of Congress, not only the form of 
government, but the time of organizing it, the extent of territory which they may 
choose to embrace, are without restriction or limitation. Will the advocates of 
this scheme contend that a few families can go into a territory of vast extent, 
and there, of their own mo'.ion, lawfully set up a government for themselves in de- 
fiance of the General Government? If not, what number of persons could do it? 
Where is there any guide in regard to the requisite number to be found ? What 
amount of territory shall they bring within their jurisdiction ? If Congress has 
nothing to do with governing the Territories, a i^ew settlers might claim jurisdiction 
over territory enough for several States. Other settlements would grow up in dif- 
ferent parts of the country, disclaiming any connection with those who happened 
first to get there, and endless conflicts for jurisdiction and power would be the in- 
evitable consequence. 

The first requisite of all Governments is not only the capacity to make suitable 
laws, but power to enforce the observance of them. Without this power, no con- 
trivance, however wise and equitable its provisions, is worthy the name of Gov- 
ernment. The compact should have consistence and strength. It should be able 
to stretch forth its power to the utmost limits of the Territory, and bring within the 
protection of its laws and institutions every inhabitant, however weak, and to sup- 
press all disorder. Oregon, with her twelve thousand inhabitants, was unable to 
do this. During the unreasonable delay of Congress to provide for her a govern- 
ment, she from necessity constituted a legislature, and enacted laws ; but many of 
the people refused to obey them. And while Oregon was petitioning Congress to 
legalize u-hat her Legislature had done, this strange doctrine of a want of consti- 
tutional power in Congress to provide for her a government sprang into existence. 
It came from men stung with ambition, and whose only desire was to avoid the 
delicate responsibility of acting upon the subject. It came from men less anxious 
to provide for the government and well-being of the Territories than for themselves 
places of honor and profit. 

The action of Congress in regard to the government of the Territories has been 
simple, and suited to the genius of all our institutions. When the inhabitants were 
scattered and few, a territorial government has been formed for most of the Terri- 
tories, which have since become States, consisting of a governor and council, cloth- 
ed with certain well-defined powers. As soon as the people of a Territory had 
grown sufficiently numerous to render such a step advisable, a delegate in Con- 



6 

■aiahtjiiwj 

"^re^s A.Vas authorized, and a legislature elected by the people, was provided for ; 
but Congress reserved to itselt the right to abrogate such laws. A still further in- 
crease of population, a growth in wealth and importance, at length brought these 
Territories, one after another, into the family of States. This system is admirably 

- Tadapted to fit, step by step, even discordant materials for the business of self.gov- 

"*'"ernment. In those Territories peopled by migration from other States, the process 
was plain and natural. Even Louisiana and Florida, though governed from their 
infancy by a monarchy, were gradually moulded into elements congenial to our re- 

■^-publican institutions. 

■-- Some who admit the power of Congress to control slavery in the Territories, 

'* doubt or deny the expedieifcy of exercising that power. They think that legisla- 

' lion upon this subject should be left to the people of the Territories. It is not strange 
that many v/ell-disposed persons, naturally desirojs to postpone the adjustment of 

" difficult and exciting questions, should yield to this proposition quite an easy assent. 
Indeed, the scheme itself, at first view, is quite plausible, and, in some portions 

■ of the country, parly alliance has had no small degree of influence in its favor. The 

• -ardent partisan is apt to think only of success in the first die to be turned, without 
considering fully the effect of his acts for any considerable time to come. He 
seizes the strong point in his case, and asks, with an air of triumph : Are you 

■. ftfraid to leave this question with the people ? Slavery is a domestic institution, as 

^ ^ tinuch so as the institution of marriage ; and will you withhold the right to control 

>-1amily arrangements from the people ? It is decided by great theologians, that sla- 

' Very is sanctioned by Divine Revelation, and can you say that Congress ought to 

• -legislate upon the consciences of the people. 

*>> Slavery once introduced, takes a deep and abiding hold upon the country. Its 
'*' effects are soon diflTjsed through every department of society — all domestic arrange- 
*' snents must be formed in accordance with it. The plantations, instead of contain- 
-^■'Ing one or two hundred acres, must embrace one or two thousand — the plough and 
the axe, in the hands of the slave, must be used by him, or those scarcely above his 
condition ; for the man of substance never descends to the labor of the slave, where 
slavery has gained a foothold. Education cannot be generally diffused, for this can 
■'* be done only by common schools ; and what can be done for common schools, 
-•'where the extent of the plantations will not admit of residents within a mile or 
■'■tnore of each other? The sons and daughters of the planter will soon enter upon 
'% life of luxurious ease. Industry is necessarily degraded — society is comparative- 
ly stationery — the poor cannot rise, and the rich fall only when prodigality has sup-' 
-^;*planted the place of virtue ; or the plantation, bereft of its fertility, compels the sons 
'" of the planter to seek a commission in the army or navy for subsistence. We know 
how hard it is to break from the thraldom of a monarchial government; but far 
greater is the task of breaking up the institution of slavery when once fully estab- 
lished with all of its appendages, and when the wealth of the people consists in a 
-great measure in the value of their slaves, than to throw off the yoke of the most 
•'-':^owerful monarch. It may be said, that this was not so in the Northern Sta'.es. 
But the Northern States were not surveyed into large plantations. Small farms, a 
dense population, and a cold climate will soon put an end to any slavery in any 
country. Sir, let the system of slavery be once settled fully into the texture of so- 
ciety, and when you undertake to reverse the wheels of legislation, and turn back 
ihe strong current of custom, of prejudice and interest, depend upon it you have a 
task in hand which generations may long strive in vain to achieve. The master 
-will not easily give up the slave. He will not willingly put his own hands to the 
"^'^'j)!ough. It will not suit him to take up the toil no^v wrung from his bondmen. He 
"^^^nas the wealth and the influence, and long will he maintain the ascendency. 
'•^ The climate of Oregon is as well suited to the products of slave labor as Vir- 
'-"Lginla ; California and New Mexico take rank with the range of States in the ex- 



treme South. If Oregon contained as many people to the scinare mile as the State 
of New York does, her population would exceed sixteen millions ; or if as dense 
as that of Massachusetts, the num'ier would be upwards of twenty-nine millions. 
But Oregon has now only twelve thousand inhahitants, and pruhaMy not over 
twenty-live hundred voter:?. The vast amount of her unoccupied lands hrlonging 
to the I'nited States is worthy of attention, and the people of the whole nation are 
interested in their value. That country must be settled chiefly by migrations from 
the various States of the Unimi, and by emigrants from foreign countries. No one 
can douljt but that the people who will go there within a very few years, and who 
are now inhal>itants of the States, will far exceed the present po|)uIation of the 
Territory in numbers. The inhabitants of the whole Union, therefore, have a far 
greater interest in the question, whether- slavery shall be admiited into Oregon than 
the present inhabitants of that country have. An}' legislation of the people now 
there would not be as much for themselves as for others yet to go there, but who 
now reside in the various States, and who are and will be, until their removal, rep- 
resented in the National Legislature. If, therefore. Congress had conferred upon 
the peo[)le of Oregon the power to admit or exclude slavery, the exercise of that 
power by so small a number of people scattered over such a vast extent of terri- 
tory, thus settling the question not only for themselves but. for all who should move 
there, would be both impolitic and unjust. It would l)e conferring upon the people 
•of Oregon the power to legislate, not upon a course of policy which might be eas- 
ily changed, and which is temporary in its character, but upon a vital question 
which must give bent and controlling influence to society there fL>r ages. It is far 
more in accordance with the spirit of our republican institutions, that the people of 
the whole nation, through their representatives in Congress, should have some 
voice in arranging the permanent institutions of a new and distant Territory, than 
to vest this important trust in the hands of a few straggling settlers of imcongenial 
habits and fluctuating in puipose. 

I have alluded to Oregon to illustrate a principle ; and v»hat has been said of 
that country is equally applicable to California and New ]\I?xico. These two 
Territories, of twice the area of Oregon, with a population l)rought up under a 
foreign Government, speaking another language, and far from ranking high in the 
scale of civilization, do not present an inviting lield for experiment. 

Few will undertake to deny, at this late day, that this is a national question. 
Its influence has been felt in every |)art of the Union, The power which slavery 
has exerted is beyond all estimate. The politician has kneeled to this power as 
to an idol. The press has pleaded its cause. The condition of the slave has 
been lauded to the skies, and his nature traduced by the North and the South with 
the blackest invective. The belief that slavery should be excluded from the Ter- 
ritories now free, has been met with every grade of disparagement, both from the 
high in power and the low in purpose. The principle has been attacked under 
the name of men, and men under the name of principle, until our vernacular, unable 
to bear on the contest with sufficient effect, was forced to admit an accession of re- 
proachful terms, unheard of before in any dialect. While this conflict of words 
has been carried on by the politician and the press, the great body of the people, 
North and South, have been comparatively quiet. They kept a clear eye upon 
passing events, and have given some indication that they also were entitled to be 
heard upon this question. Most of the newspaper artillery was, and still is, too 
far oft; too high up, to disturb the quiet of their pursuits. They have not yet seen 
the Union break in pieces. They know as well as we do that discussion, if worth 
anything, will produce some stir — well enough called " agitation ;" and they have 
lived long enough to know that descriptions of tremendous excitements are far more 
frequent than excitements themselves. Let us, then, turn to our duty, unawed bjr 
the machinery set in motion to avoid this question, as dangerous to the Union, and 



8 

firmly vote upon the subject as a national question. We ought to legislate for the- 
benefit of these Territories, but at the same time keep in view the interest that 
every State has in their growth and prosperity. Their rapid settlement would 
sooner brin"- the public lands there into market, and enable us to turn over the 
avails to pay the expenses of the war, and the fifteen millions due to Mexico. 
Their speedy settlement will tend to increase our revenues derived from impost 
duties, to be devoted to the same object. If the question were settled thai slavery 
should be excluded, farmers from the North and South, who work for themselves, 
would soon cono-regate there, irrigate the land, and show to the slaveholder that 
free labor is suited to a warm as well as a cold climate ; that a man who is stimu- 
lated by the ordinary incentives of property, freedom, and independence, will ac 
complis'h moie manual labor without the shackles of slavery upon him, than with 
them. Give us the opportunity to try the experiment of fcee labor in the same 
climate with your slave labor, but without the blighting influence of its presence, 
and then it would be far easier to decide which should have the preference. Slave 
labor now engrosses the business of raising cane and cotton. No one will con- 
tend that the labor of the freeman and slave can be. carried on together. The 
freeman will not submit to the degredation of working by the side of the slave. 
Why banish the free laboring man of the North, and the free laboiing man of the 
South iVom this field of our acquisitions ? A large portion of the people residing 
in southern Ohio, Indiana, and iUinois, moved there from the slavchoiding States, 
happy to gel beyond the reach of this domestic institution. But the entire South 
have now no free, isothermal territory. There must be poor men in the South, who 
would be glad to live in a climate congenial to the place of their nativity ; why 
not provide a free Territory where their laudable aspirations for an independent 
living upon their own farms may be gratified ? 

It is amusing to hear it announced that the South fought for the country, and if we 
exclude slavery, we banish the people of the South — the soldiers — from the acquir- 
ed possessions. Let it be remembered that slaveholders do not carry knapsacks 
upon their backs. It is the poor of the South who have done that. The slave- 
holders are rewarded with the offices. These soldiers — men who have done the 
labor of the campaigns, who have suffered the greatest privations, obeyed every 
command, and met every danger — should be amply provided for. Think ye that 
these men, rocked in the cradle of virtuous poverty, fought for the extension and 
perpetuation of slavery? I greatly mistake the tendencies of man's nature, if the 
daring and brave but humane and sympathetic poor have any substantial alliance 
with the institution of slavery. No, sir, that institution depends upon elements 
drawn from another direr-tion. If you intend to devote the new Territories to the 
officers of the Southern States who served in the Mexican war and their wealthy 
relatives and friends, and to banish the soldiers from thence, then plant slavery 
there. Let the fertile valleys there groan under its weight until the soil, abused and 
exhuastcd, shall r^^-fuse subsistence to man. Whether the North or the South furnish- 
ed the largest number of men for the Mexican war, has no bearing upon this ques- 
tion. Certain it is that the North was anxious and offered to supply far more vol- 
unleers than the President would accept. If he admitted into the service a larger 
proportion from the South than the North, and refused to allow the North to furnish 
- its due quota, it may be difficult to decide which is entitled to the most credit for 
patriotism, those who sought the favor of entering the service, but without success, 
or those who were so fortunate as to win that favor. If it be admitted that there 
is more patriotism in the South than the North, what then ? Is SoHthern patriot- 
ism of such a sort that it must require a corresponding sacrifice of freedom ? If 
this be so, the nature of patriotism is greatly changed since the Revolution. It 
has descended into the balance with merchandise, and is more nearly allied to- 
crime than virtue. 



The condition of the nation we have been at war with is such as to af- 
ford a lesson upon the subject of slavery. Brave as our armies were, it is 
obvious that they could not have expected such unprecedented success if they had 
been met by French or English troops; or if the Mexican race had equalled in 
valor the intrepid soldiers of Cortez. Three centuries of slavery in Mexico haa 
produced important results. The soldiers drawn from a depressed people who have 
never enjoyed the substantial blessings of liberty, and the oflTicers efleminate with 
luxury, atibrded no insurmountable obstacle to our victorious armies. I do not un- 
derrate the valor of the American arms. They fought against numbers fearfully 
unequal, and gained a greater number of brilliant victories, without a single re- 
verse, than was before recorded upon the page of history. But I do say, that if the 
Mexicans for half a century past had been as intelligent as the Americans, if the 
rewards of industry, enterprise, and individual and national independence had been 
allowed to wake into life and quicken the energies of her whole people, depend 
upon it, her capital could not have been reached by the American forces in a few 
months, and the existence of Mexico, as a nation, reduced within our power. Now 
it is proposed to carry slavery back into territories which we have acquired, as much 
by the blighting effects of slavery upon the peopleof Mexico, as by the valor of our ar- 
mies. It seems to me that the nation should pause before doing this rash act. We 
should first look fully to the consequences, and measure the effect of spreading upon 
the whole northern and eastern borders of Mexico, for a distance of two thousand 
miles, an institution whose very nature and construction lays the country which it 
occupies, open to successful invasion from without, and servile insurrection within. 

Slavery is an aggressive institution. Notwithstanding its incapacity for self-de- 
fence, it forever lusts for conquests and expansion. After the passage of the ordi- 
nance of 1787, slave owners, for years, continued to take their slaves from the 
Southern States, against the express provisions of that ordinance, into that part of 
the Northwest Territory now consisting of southern Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. 
But settlers from the North and East also flocked into these States, and in progress 
of time, the provisions of the ordinance were enforced, and the traffic in slaves 
there ceased. The importation of slaves into Cuba has been forbidden near twenty 
years, by express treaty stipulations between the Spanish Government,Great Britain^ 
and the United States, ai;d tor a violation of which the persons convicted were punish- 
able as for piracy. The importation of slaves was prohibited in Brazil by like 
treaty stipulations with that Governn)ent ; yet such is the aggressive character of 
the institution, that slaves are ct nstantly imported from Africa into Brazil and Cuba, 
and sold in market under the very eye of their Governments. In 1829 slavery was 
abolished throughout the whole of Mexico, including, of course, Texas. Yet im- 
migrants took advantage of the unsettled condition of things in Mexico, and in face 
of the prohibition, planted slavery in Texas. Let slavery be extended to our ter- 
ritories bordering upon Mexico, from the Gulf to ihe Pacific, and it will soon make 
its way, against law, as it has elsewhere, into the Mexican country, and thus lay 
the foundation of another war for conquest. This question, therefore, has an im- 
portant bearing upon our lliture relations with Mexico. Place slavery upon that 
whole frontier, and another hundred millions of dollars will be called for in a few 
years, to carry on another war with that country — another war for a further acqui- 
sition of territory and the further extension of slavery. 

Upon our part we have but one plain, simple, effective measure to carry out, 
and that is, to prohibit at once and forever the entrance of slavery into these Terri- 
tories by an act of Congress. Opposed to this, measures of a thousand hues, often 
conflicting in principle, but tending to the same result, are put forth with incon- 
ceivable vehemence. We hear trom one quarter that the question should be left 
to the people ; from another, that slavery ought to be admitted south of north lati- 
tude thirty-six degrees thirty minutes, and excluded north of that line. One says 



10 

that the country shotild at once be organized into States ; another, that one State 
should be organized and the rest of the country put in "limbo" — neither Territory 
nor State, but bordering on both. All of these projects are children of the same 
family, having for their ultimate design the safe introduction of slavery into the 
free Territories. Circumstances indicate that the whole of the opponents of the 
far-famed " Wilmot proviso," or, in other words, all who are in favor of openly or 
secretly introducing slavery into these Territories, will at last combine to form these 
Territori'es into Stales at once, without any restriction upon the subject; of slavery. 
I would not say that any such arrangement has been announced ; for it is some- 
times supposed, in legislation as in diplomacy, that the last thing to be said is the 
first to be dune. Some portion of the press his for a long time been laboring to 
prepare the public mind for this result. 

it has been confidently alleged as a settled question, that when the Territories 
become States, they have a right to admit slavery or reject it as they should deem 
proper: and hence that any restriction tipon the Territories against admitting sla- 
very is of no possible avail. This question deserves a passing notice. The fra- 
mers of the Constitution of the United States clearly did not contemplate the acqui- 
sition of territory l>eyond the then existing limits of the Union, for no provision is 
made in that instrument for any such contingency. What, then, is the process by 
which the Coui-titution has been extended over our subsequent acquisitions ? How 
is it that this instrument, so complete in itself, so definite in all its parts, has bro- 
ken over its original limits, and brought within its embrace an additional area suf- 
ficient for the maintenance of an empire? Does its capacity enlarge with the 
growth of our passion tor dominion? Various laws of the United States in form 
prior to the acquisition of Louisiana, Florida, Oregon, and Texas, have been ex- 
tended over those countries by express enactment of Congress; and the Senate, 
in the celebrated "compromise bill" of last winter, inserted a cA^xx^e cxt ending the 
Constilution over California and New Mexico. It is not my pvivpose lo inquire 
into the abstract right of Congress to make such enactments. I leave to others to 
discuss the question when it may arise, whether the Constitution is made of such 
elastic materials as to be capable of extension or contraction by an act of Congress. 
But I do maintain that whether these acquired Territories be held within the em- 
brace of the Constitution by the tacit acquiescence of our people, or by the enact- 
ments of our National Legislature, that Legislature has the right to prescribe the 
terms upon which such Territories may come into the Union as States, and to with- 
hold from such States the power to legislate upon the subject of slavery. Let us 
illustrate this principle hy a few familiar examples. The ordinance of 1787 pro- 
hibiting slavery in the Territories northwest of the Ohio river, was adopted by Con- 
gress under the Articles of Confederation, before the odoplion of the Constitution 
of the United States in 1789. After the adoption of the Constitution, Congress re- 
cognized the ordinance of 1787, as a subsisting law, and applied it toTthe state of 
things under the Constitution. 

In 1802, Congress authorized the then Territory of Ohio to form a constitution 
and State government, but required the same to be republican, and not repugnant to 
the ordinance of 1787. Congress also reserved the right to change the boundary 
of that State. Indiana and Illinois were severally admitted subject to the same or- 
dinance. In 1820, Congress, by the act providing lor the admission of the State 
of Missouri into the Union, prohibited slavery in all the rest of the territory pur- 
chased of France which lies north of the parallel of thirty-six degrees and thirty 
minutes of north latitude. In the joint resolutions of Congress, passed in 1845, 
providing for the annexation of Texas, it is declared that such States as might 
thereafter be formed out of that portion of Texas lying south of north latitude thirty- 
six degrees and thirty minutes, should be admitted into the Union with or without 
slavery, as the people of each State asking admission might desire; and that in 



11 

such State or States as should be formed out of said territory north of said parallel 
of latitude, slaveiy or involuntary servitude, except for crime, should be prohibited. 
These provisions, with respect to the ordinance of 1787, in regard to the posses- 
sions purchased of France and accjuired by the annexation of Texas, are in the na- 
ture of compacts, and cannot be abrogated except Vjy the joint action of Congress 
and the government of a State interested in such abrogation. U', previous to the 
admission of California and New Mexico into the Union as States, Congress shall 
have prohibited slavery therein, such prohibition must continue until it is repealed. 
And if, during the continuance of such prohibition, they shall be admitted into the 
Union as States, such admission would of course be subject to the prohiljition of 
^lavery ; after which, the action of both the State and National Legislatures would 

Mj^e required to abrogate the restriction. 

•^ If an application be made for the admission of California and New Mexico into 
the Union as States, at once, and without having passed through previous disci- 
pline under territorial governments, it well becomes us to incjuire into the reasons 
for such extraordinary proceedings. 

Surely it cannot be maintained that this foreign and unsettled [)opuIation, not 
yet a year out of the control of Mexico, are better qualified to exercise the rights 
of State sovereignty than the people of Ohio, Indiana, and the other new Territories 
were, and who were required to pass through the preparatory steps of territorial 
governments. No, sir, this is not the reason for hurrying California and New 
Mexico into the Union as States. But the advocates of this plan suppose, that by 
making these Territories States at once, no provision excluding slavery will be re- 
quired. In this I think they are mistaken. The Constitution confers upon Con- 
gress the power to admit new States into the Union. New States cannot come 
into the Union as a matter of arbitrary and absolute right. They are to be part- 
ners in the Confederacy, and it is the duty of the National Legislature to judge of 
the expediency of the measure, and to admit them ujion such conditions as shall 
promote the general welfare of the Union. If to exclude slavery would promote 
this object, let that be a condition. This condition would be in the nature of a com- 
pact, and as binding upon the parties as are the restrictions contained in the ordi- 
nance of 1787, the Missouri compromise, or the resolutions for annexing Texas, arc 
upon the parties concerned. It is unjust to call this prohibition an invidious discrim- 
ination, wheu the free States northwest of the Ohio, Iowa, and a part of Texas, arc 
yet under the same prohibition. In Territories like California and New Mexico, 
where th^e white population is comparatively small, the anxiety to gain settlers is so 
great that but little objection is made to slavery ; and slaveholders, with their slaves, 
may be considered a valuable acquisition. Hence Indiana, when under a territo- 
rial government, and before she had learned to deprecate the eflects of slavery upon 
her prosperity, petitioned Congress for the repeal of the restrictions contained in 
the ordinance of 1787, prohibiting slavery from that Territory. She has reason 
to rejoice that Congress declined to grant the petition; for if granted, she would 
now have been languishing under a load destructive to her prosperity as a State. 
Emigrants from the free States would have shunned her as a blot upon the fair 
Northwest, It is obvious, therefore, that the right to legislate upon this subject 
should be held by Congress for the present, at least, whether the governments to 
be constituted shall be State or territorial. 

With a view of showing that no legislation upon the subject of slavery in the 
new Territories would be of any avail, the position is taken, that inasmuch as 
slavery was abolished while these Territories formed a part of the Mexican Con- 
federacy, they are now free and need no prohibition by act of Congress, I concur 
in the opinion, that these Territories are indeed free. But the whole people of 
the slaveholdiug States, so far as I have been able to learn, are of a different 



12 

opinion; and maintain, that if a citizen of the United States should take his slaves 
into those Tci'i-itories, he would have a right to hold them as his property. This 
difference of "Opinion arises from the difference in the institutions under which the 
North and the South have been respectively educated. In the North, no person, 
whatever the color, is to be deemed a slave until that fact be proved. In the South, 
a negro is deemed a slave until he is proved to be free ; and if no master claims 
him, they have a summary process of providing a master for him. In one of the 
Southern States, it has recently been decided by the courts, that the fact that a ne- 
gro is found in any place is evidence that the law authorizes slavery in such place ; 
and the color of the skin is left to settle the question which is the master and which 
the slave. That there should be such a fundamental difference between the laws 
of the North and the South upon this subject of evidence, is remarkable, but jyt 
less strange than the difference ot opinion existing in regard to the questio|B|" 
freedom in the new Territories. ^^ 

It has been the practice in every civilized nation, when there is a difference of 
opinion in regard to an important legal principle, to have the principle settled by 
legislation. A great variety of statutes are passed m.erely in affirmance of the 
common law. So of this question. It is not only our right but our duty to settle 
it definitely and permanently by an act of the National Legislature. But if gen- 
tlemen choose to leave it open and unsettled, what will be the consequence ? A 
struggle will be kept up year after year. The master will take his slaves into the 
new territories, and who will be there to sue for their freedom? Surely the mas- 
ter will not send" off his slaves to employ counsel for that purpose, nor will he fur- 
nish them funds to carry on the litigation. Suppose that some benevolent person 
should cause a suit to be instituted for the liberation of a slave ; if the judge be a 
Southern man, as he doubtless will be, he will decide that the color of the person 
held to service is evidence, not only that slavery is sanctioned by law (here, but 
that the person himself is a slave. As the law stands the suit could not be taken 
to the Supreme Court of the United States for reversal, and thus the suit would 
terminate without liberating the slave. But suppose there were a law authorizing 
the removal of such a cause to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the 
suit were prosecuted, at a vast expense, to a successful termination ; verily, one 
slave would be liberated ; but what would become of the thousands by that time car- 
ried into the new territory? Would suits for the freedom of each one be institu- 
ted? Let the fate of those slaves of Pennsylvania, entitled to freedom by the 
manumission act of that Sta,te, who were sent and sold in Kentucky, and their pos- 
terity answer the question. Let the thousands of negroes unlawfully introduced 
yearly into Brazil and Cuba, and there fixed in perpetual bondage, proclaim how 
frail to the black race the tenure of liberty is. If, under such circumstances, our 
National Legislature is too weak to settle the law by direct and unequivocal enact- 
ment, equally vacillating will be the adjudications of our courts of justice upon this 
subject. Slavery, as aggressive now as ever, will stealthily invade our new terri- 
torial acquisitions, and plant itself there ; and legislators now having the power, 
but not the magnanimity to prevent it, will not then have the firmness to expel it. 
If Congress should expressly forbid the introduction of slavery into the new terri- 
tories, the tict itself would be a pledge of the nation to the prompt execution of the 
law. If the law were violated, a remedy adequate to the task would soon be pro- 
vided. Such a law would be known and heeded by the settlers destined for that 
country. But let this remain a disputed question ; let Congress falter and hesitate, 
but not decide, and slavery will have won a victory over liberty, unbecoming the 
age in which we live. The certificates of chancellors and judges of the North — 
given out of court — printed but not reported, will be as useless in staying the tide 
of this aggressive institution, as they have been fruitless in the political arena. 



13 

I am aware that this subject is not agreeable to many for whom I have a high 
respect. I can make allowance for difference in education, and doubt not the fre- 
<juent exercise of humanity in the master. I am not called upon to speak of 
slavery in the States where it now exists ; when those States came into the Union, 
no power over the subject was reserved to the General Government, and hence 
this power belongs to such States exclusively. But in discussing the expediency 
and the right of extending this institution into free territory, it would be unpardon- 
able in a legislator to shut his eyes against any thing legitimately bearing on the 
<}uestion. 

The charge, that the agitation of this subject tends to affect slave property in 
tha Southern States is true to a certain extent. It is like the influence produced 
^|oJie emancipation of our own country from the thraldom of Great Britain upon 
several nations in Europe. So will the policy pursued by our Government in re- 
gard to these newly acquired Territories, produce some moral effect upon the slave- 
holding States themselves. Even the emancipation of the slaves in the Northern 
States must have produced some influence in the South. I am not surprised that 
the emancipation of slaves by Mexico, the South American Republics, England, 
and Denmark, should press somewhat upon the Southern States, and produce a 
restiveness occasioned by the spread of principles hostile to this institution. This 
progress of freedom to the slave illy prepared the mind of the slaveholder for the 
intelligence that republican France, among her first legislative enactments, ex- 
tended to her slaves the same liberty which she had won for her own citizens; 
and ratified the deed by inserting in her Constitution the short but comprehensive 
and memorable article, that " slavery cannot exist in any territory belonging to 
France." Though this general progress of liberty may produce some effect in the 
South, it is demanding too much that all that the world is doing for liberal princi- 
ples should stop on that account. Can the South ask more than the pledge, that 
slavery in the States where it now is, shall not be interfered with. 

I am aware that there is a species of philanthropists North and South who verily 
believe that the black race is better oft* in a state of servitude than freedom. They 
also fear that the discussion in regard to slavery in the Territories will induce the 
master to draw the cord of servitude closer, and thus prove an injury to the slave 
himself. Their fears, however, do not stop here. They think that the discussion 
of this subject will disturb the respective political parties to which they belong, 
and that, if persevered in, the loss of place and patronage may be the consequence. 
These sentiments are felt the strongest in the dominant political party, whichever 
that party may chance to be ; and as power changes from one party to the other, 
sentiments upon this subject change also. Who, a year since, would have thought 
that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Thompson) would so soon have hurled de- 
nunciation at his political friend from New York, (Mr. Gott,) for an effort to abol- 
ish the slave trade at the capital of the nation. Ah, sir ! the changes going on 
upon the other side of the House are as rapid as the mutations in the formation of 
insects : yesterday, the hard, tough chrysalis ; to-day, the full grown butterfly ! 
Mr. Gott's resolution was carried by a large majority. By changes on the other 
side of the political line, it was reconsidered and sent upon the general orders, 
where it will never be reached more. Time will disclose from what motives these 
changes sprang. Let me say to the gentleman from Indiana, that the principle of 
the " »Vilmot proviso," which so disturbs thy slumbers and haunts thee as a spectre, 
has only paid thee his first boding visit, and " will meet thee again at Cannae." 
Those who maintain that the negro is best off in a state of slavery, belong to that 
class of philosophers who believe the less a man knows the more happy he is — 
the lower the degradation the greater the enjoyment. This rule, if applicable any- 
where, can have but little respect to color. It may well be supposed, that when 
the slaveholder from time to time discovers the progress of liberal principles, the 



14 

greater will be his apprehension of the frailty pf ihe tenure under which he holds 
his bondmen ; and hence it is to be expected that less lenity to his slaves will be 
exhibited. That this question, also, may disburb political parties, is equally obvi- 
ous. But the apprehension of these results, necessarily of a temporary character, 
forms no basis for arresting a course of legislation founded upon the most obvious 
principles of justice. If fear, instead of sound sense, is to guide us ; if an act 
clearly wrong is to be done, merely out of fear that a right one may produce some 
temporary inconvenience to persons or political parties, then the weak'legislator, 
who is easily driven from instability to timidity, from timidity to fear, from fear to 
deleiious affright, should be sent here !o transact the business of the nation. I feel 
disgust for arguments so wanting in substance. They indicate a species of mental 
vassalage unbecoming the representatives of a free and independent people. y/ 

Sir, the proposition to extend slavery beyond its present limits, brings the 'mB(i- 
tution itself before us upon its merits, moral, social, and political. If slavery is to 
be sent into the new Territories, it should first be shown, by those who take an in- 
terest in its favor, to be advantageous to the country and its institutions, to the 
slave and to the master. That the sinrender of a new country of vast extent, to this 
domestic institution, tends to strengthen and perpetuate it, will not l)e denied by any 
who have examined its progress, decline, and final extinction, in every part of 
western Europe. The vast amoimt of uncultivated lands in the Southern Slates 
Avill keep up the institution for a long time to con:e. The addition of Texas to 
this interest will perpetuate slavery more than half a century. The master will 
not give Dj) the institution. The longer it continues, the less is he inclined to 
abandon it. So long as slaveholders, by their numbers, their wealth, and their in- 
fluence, can control a majority of electors in a State, so long will the institution re- 
main there. It has always been so, and it always will be. VVhen did any class 
of men voluntarily surrender power? The French church and nobility would not 
only have held, but increased their vast ])ossessions to this day, but for the revolu- 
tion of 1799. Did the cry of want ever awaken their sympathy ? The British 
landholders have never extended their possessions so rapidly as now. The ten- 
ants are daily driven from their houses, to wander without shelter, and to famish. 
When will these hereditary landholders consent to divide their vast possessions, or 
pass any law tending to an equal distribution even among their own children ? 
When the slaveholders as a body, shall voluntarily manumit their slaves, or enact 
laws encouraging manumission, then may we expect that the British nobleman 
will unloose his iron grasp upon his boundless possessions. Both are actuated by 
the same motives ; the eft'ect produced by i)oth is the same. Neither has so 
praised his own peculiar institution for a century past as now, and neither instilu- 
tution has ])een more universally deplored than at this moment. 

I refer to slavery as it is, lor the purpose of showing what its fruits must be in 
our new Territories. What is its effect upon the white race ? Under every form 
of government having the benefits of civilization there is a middle class, neither 
rich nor poor, in which is concentrated the chief enterprise of the country. The 
virtues of industry and economy, ambition, and capacity to increase in knowledge 
and wealth, a watchful guardianship of their own rights, and a vigilant attention 
to the public welfare, are, their leading characteristics. In the slave States there 
is in substance no middle class. Great wealth or hopeless poverty is the settled 
condition. The connecting link is left out. The white laborer is necessarily the 
companion of the slave; and the master is as far removed from the/one as the 
other. This arrangement of society is an artificial one. It is unsound in princi- 
ple, and unsafe in practice. It consists of a conglomeration of many oligarchies ; 
the more numerous the masters, the more arbitrary the rule. The one is raised 
as far above a fit condition for improvement as the other is sunk below it. It is 
anti-republican in all its tendencies. What is the true strength of such a compact'^ 



Probp Jt to the core and see if it is sound there. Does each part naturally tend 
to supppi;t a,pd.s,trengthen the other ? No; there is no affinity between the' lash 
and, its viutj^ipp. A slight change of circinnstan.ces might produce a change of mas- "^ 
lers. If sKvery is not safe against internal commotion, what islffs effect in time- '' 
of war,? Slave possessions present an open gateway to the invader. This is the-^' 
institution, sir, which gentlemen propose to send oft', as a guard, upoti our remote 
outposts, and stretch it along our southern l)order to the Pacific Ocean. The Con- 
stitution guarantees to each Slate a republican (()rm of government ; and the only 
way to insure that result is, to set up institutions in our Territories which shall {)rove 
the elements of power, not the seed of weakness and decay. 

The effects of this institution are not the choice of the slaveholder. He chooses 
to possess himself of the slaves, and the effects are a«; far beyond his control as 
the laws of nature are. Send this institution to California and New IMexico, and 
you must send with it all its incidents. You must take, as an exemplar, the statutes 
of the slave States, statutes enacted not from chf)ice, but as a necessary part of the 
institution, and learn the severe lesson of what must be done. Compare these 
laws with the past, and you will not find, in the history of the most barbarous age, 
enactments more revolting to the moral sense of mankind. Yes, sir ; if you will 
send slavery into our free Territories, you must send the " black code'' there to 
protect it. You must teach the people of the 'J'erritories to regard these human 
beings as property — property of a peculiar chaiacter. You mujt iiiserr. in the rode 
that this property mu?t not read ; that it may become Christian property, and be 
baptized, but it shall not. tor that cause, become free ; that thi^i property must not 
steal itself, and if it should, it shall l)e adjudged guilty of felony ; that \.\\\<, proper ty 
shall not commit murder on pain of death ; and if executed, the Stale shall pay the 
owner for it ; that this property shall not take an oath against a white manj not- 
withstanding the brutality of the oflence committed. You must send the whippino-- 
post there, and tutor the serisibilities of the people with the spectacle of fiof-o-inff. 
Patrols must be sent out at the public expense to hunt down the truant slave, and 
guard the dwelling of his master. The army and navy must be increased to quell 
internal commotion. The penalty of death must be inflicted on the slaves for pet- 
ty offences, and justices of the peace authorized to flog, maim, or hang them. The 
slave must have no right to a trial by jury. The solemn dignitaries of the law — 
men supposed to be capable of exercising the grave civil responsibiiiiies conferred 
on them by the "ten pound act,'" must be the sole dispensers, without appeal, of 
life and liberty. Every possible discouragement must be enacted against the vol- 
untary emancipation of the slave liy the master; and laws either expelling the free 
blacks from the country, or placitig them in a state of servility a little above slavery 
itself, must mar the face of your statute hooks. The slave market must be enlaro-ed> 
the breeding of slaves for sale encouraged, and the stiongest ties which nature has 
made, wrung asui;der, to people these new Territories with the victims of iJie slave- 
dealer's avarice. 

Whoever learns to 'ook upon a wrong with unconcern, has done himself a greater 
injury than the one inflicted on the sufferer. Is he not to be pitied who has so 
subdued his own moral sense, as to witness with cool deliberation and frigid com- 
posure, the final separation of parent and child to meet a destiny, to them all the 
more afflicting, because unknown ? The horror of the middle passage has been 
deplored by the philanthropist, and condemned by the civilized world — its fatality ot 
life has excited sympathy everywhere. But no bodily suffering can stir anguish so 
deep as the mental torture of separation to those whose only solace is the affec- 
tionate regard of parents (slaves though they be) and other ties of consanguinity. 
Tutor a man to look with disdain upon these emotions, and he is a fit instrument to 
carry on the slave trade. Such a man is mon* the oljject of pity than the subject 
of censure. He has lost more than his own liberty — he has lost his humanity.. 



16 



The question then, is, whether we shall open a new market for the encouragement 
of this traffic ? Will such a market improve our people, and contribute to the gen- 
eral welfare of the country? Do a majority of the people in the United States 
desire the adoption of such a measure ? If not, then our duty is piam ; and we 
will write upon the statute book the perpetual exclusion of slavery from the free 
■territories. 



^ W46 



.** .'j.;^*!. %_ (f .c:^. "% 



o V 



4* ►*^V 

















* * • *• c> r»^ 



-^AO^ 



0^ * 



/ .'i 










'^^0^ 



4- *- 






r 

v^ **%:.' 


















V. 



'^-^^' •^4m^: ^^^^ 









Xo<i'^^ 






*^'-\ V 




<> *-... 

















. >. .-r .>v^^a:«'. t<. A^ 












'^O 






.^% ^ .'^-^ 



■o , * 



A" 



BOOKBINDING 

CrantMlie, Pa 
Jan Feb 1989 



^'^> ".''er'Si'' 



